Skip to comments.Researcher: Children of same-sex couples more likely to be homosexual
Posted on 10/22/2010 5:43:47 AM PDT by GonzoII
Researcher: Children of same-sex couples more likely to be homosexual
.- Social scientist Walter Schumm doesn't think his forthcoming paper ought to be provoking outraged responses he has already received.
For years, researchers have admitted the possibility that he says he has now confirmed -- that children raised by homosexual parents are more apt to become homosexual themselves.
Nevertheless, Schumm's article, which will be published in the November edition of the Journal of Biosocial Science, has triggered a firestorm since it began circulating online this summer. Irate advocates for the normalization of homosexuality accused him of ideological bias and shoddy research.
But Schumm, a professor of family studies at Kansas State University, said he rigorously tried to disprove his own theory. Ultimately, he reached a conclusion that mainstream sociologists, and even a prominent gay activist, have described as common sense.
In new research and an analysis of more than two dozen earlier studies, Schumm found that 27 percent of lesbian parents' children identified themselves as homosexual, and 19 percent of the children of gay men; by contrast, 5 to 10 percent of the children of heterosexual parents self-identify as homosexual.
Furthermore, Schumm observed gay parents' children increasingly identifying as homosexual as they emerged from adolescence. His analysis of families with older children showed that one-third of gay fathers' families, and 58 percent of families of lesbian mothers, included at least one gay or lesbian child.
Most scholars actually agree with the concept that gay people ought to be more likely to have gay children, he told CNA in an Oct. 19 interview. Even people on the liberal side of things actually pretty much agree with the idea that there are going to be social influences.
He noted that prominent gay activist Jim Burroway has criticized proponents of the parental influence theory but has also said that such findings would not be surprising. In a column published on a gay and lesbian website in 2006, Burroway noted that virtually every theory about the origin of homosexuality would likely predict a higher incidence in children of gay parents.
Schumm wanted to test that prediction, and to improve on previous research he said was too limited and not sufficiently rigorous. He analyzed data obtained from 26 studies of gay parents and their children. He noted that many of the studies' authors had dismissed the idea of a parental influence on childrens homosexuality.
Those researchers, Schumm believes, chose to ignore or downplay the significance of their own findings. Even when attempting to disprove his hypothesis -- for instance, by classifying the significant number of respondents who showed no clearly defined sexual preference as heterosexual in the analysis, or assuming that up to a third of those identified as homosexuals could have been erroneously categorized-- Schumm consistently confirmed the hypothesis among 218 families.
His paper makes no assertions as to the exact origin of homosexual behavior. But the professor has indicated some of the pathways through which he believes homosexual parents may influence children. These include parents' attitudes toward adolescent sexual experimentation, and ideas about men and relationships that Schumm said tended to prevail in some lesbian households.
This is totally wrong. I have to read the article carefully now!
So it is a choice...
So it is a choice...
That is a lie. They want affirmation and acceptance for their nihilistic, destructive behavior. They want to promote it as good (as they do in all media where they hide all negative references like the Duke homosexual who married in Mass and adopted a black baby and molested him and pimped him to other homosexuals.) It is a sexual identity disorder and never natural. It was a crime to take it off the APA list of disorders and was forced off--not by scientific research--but by the gay movement so they could proceed to normalize it through brainwashing.
There is no homosexual gene. It has been conclusively proven in several scientific reports. They try to compare a behavior to skin color....it is why they lie about the genetic angle--to gain sympathy for a lifestyle.
If there is a sexual orientation gene, then there has to be a baby raping gene or a bestiality gene. It is utterly stupid to pursue the "gene" theory.
Sexual decadence is learned--you find lots of it where it is not condemned....Gramsci and Marcuse understood the need to corrupt societies by using sexual perversion and Freudian Marxism is behind the homosexual movement.
Research the intent of this movement....it is to destroy Western Civilization.....not change it....to destroy it. Get educated before you make such ignorant posts!
False Compassion is what you have for homosexuality. Yes, Christians need to be compassionate to all sinners, because we all are....but you do not affirm the sins and advocate the continual sinning PLUS tell your kids (cognitive dissonance) that homosexual behavior is good. That is like telling them doing crack is good too. Both behaviors are nihilistic and are demeaning to a culture of life. Healthy societies can not promote destructive lifestyles to their children. It is suicidal for a culture to do that....but with the Cultural Marxists in control of media, schools and government, we are destroying ourselves....We need to CHANGE NOW!
“Biology of Belief” been out for quite a while and is easy to read even for a layman.
Incidentally, the scientist who did this research is active in a Christian church (His wife was formerly council pres.)
He took genetically identical agouti mice that were predisposed to obesity, diabetes, and cancer and in a controlled environment, changed the diet in the experimental group which significantly altered gene expression. There is a pic of two of the mice at the link.
I like to use Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the tares in the wheat (Matthew 13) to understand the purpose of this life experience. We are the good seeds planted in the field (earth) to grow. But it is soul growth that matters, not matters of the flesh. Man truly was created in God's image.
Here is a link to a video on it:
Make sure you allow the video to reload and continue playing. It is excellent.
Don’t even straight children go through a sort of “gay period” — where they haven’t completely linked their sexuality to a gender, but are often immensely attracted to a member of their own sex? Perhaps because their own gender is more accessible and intimate to them than members of the opposite sex.
I'm female and I always liked boys. I had many crushes on my older brother's friends. But somewhere around 6th grade I remember being absolutely fascinated with one girl and with everything about her. Nothing happened, but I can't say that I wasn't confused about my feelings for her at the time. Hormones waking up don't come with a set of instructions. In retrospect, I realized that I just really wanted to BE her, but I didn't know that then.
Never had those feelings about anyone of the same gender since. But I always wondered if homosexuality was the result of sort of getting stuck in that kind of immature fantasy and then getting a sexual payoff for it.
While Freud was a real jerk, there are a few things I do agree with him.
In the period of child development prior to the “Oedipus Complex” period, all children first try to bond with their mother. When children are born, whether male or female, consciousness and the related memory storage and processing is done emotionally in a feminine manner. This is the diminished gradually and at about age 8-9 the logical intellectual aspect of consciousness begins to develop. This is in 3rd grade when they usually begin long division and multiplication. This logical aspect of consciousness creates the separation from the mother and is the basis for building the ego self (which peaks at age 16 when they know it all!!)
This is the reason that 4th grade is the hardest for teachers as the children change so much from the beginning of the school year to the end. They begin in a dependency, follow the rules attitude and end with a rebellious attitude.
During the birth to age 8-9, most children try to have a strong relationship with their mother. When there is a strong dominate controlling mother, it often delays puberty and leads to a very feminine son.... Reason, they develop as the compliment of the controlling mother who has fostered a codependency. The dominate controlling nature of the mother is a masculine manifestation of her personality.
dominate.... sorry, I clicked wrong spell check choice... s/b dominant
Ground up peanuts likely to taste like peanut butter.
So people are not born a homosexual?
“Is it possible that these homosexual couples are passing along this gay gene when they reproduce, er when they adopt? Now I am really confused. How do same sex couples reproduce to pass on their gay genes that all liberals talk about?”
What sick freak would give children to homos to raise?? They need horse whipped!
in the recent months, it seems that the mask really is being removed completely, and the human condition, on both sides of the isle is full throttle toward a 'judgement' scenario...
maybe a couple three generations to go yet, but time is quickly boiling the showdown to a head...grab yer families tight and teach em 'Right' from the 'world'...
My friend you’re beyond salvage on this issue.
People are born with a myriad of gene deficiencies every day. Never said anything about a homosexual gene. Please cite the so-called scientific evidence proving that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle?
As to your example of bad homosexual behavior: You seem to be saying that because some homesexuals do bad things all homosexuals do bad things. Your logic is specious and juvenile. Because, if your logic is logical, then the same can be said for heterosexuals. In other words, because some heteros do bad things all heteros do bad things.
What is liberal science? There’s science and there’s science. There is no conservative, muslim, Christian or libertarian science. Science with a political tag ceases to be science. It is propaganda—noting more.
Obviously you believe homosexuality is a chosen behavior.
I grew up in a male orphanage. I was there from 6 to 17 years old. It was a very male-oriented environment. How do you explain the fact that each class had at least one homosexual member. They sure as hell didn’t learn it and choose it in the orphanage.
One of my friends was homosexual. I protected him from being bullied. His name was Lenny and we talked about his situation as we got older. Lenny has no conscious recollection of changing to anything. He was always what he was. He told me his mom put him in the orphanage in an attempt to change his sexual orientation.
Obviously, it did not work.
Because we were in an all boys institution we showered communally. We also swam in the nude. I can’t even begin to tell you how painful this was for Lenny. We had one swim monitor who would line up us naked boys to take roll. Lenny was always mortified. He would stand there and attempt to cover himself. My heart went out to him.
To be sure, there are so-called switch hitters and experimenters. Human nature, let alone the sexuality part, afterall, is very complicated.
This gets back to my simple question: Who would claim to be homosexual who was not? Particularly considering the societal stigma associated with it in the past. Moreover, despite the “come outers” and the the gay pride idiots, much of that stigma persists today. Much of it rooted in the Biblical contention that “man should not lie with man”.
All that said, I do not support gay marriage nor do I support pretending that homesexual behavior is normal. It is not. I do support, so long as no public spectacle is made about it, gay cohabitation. And along with that, the right to sharing in the partner’s health care, insurance, home ownership, inheritance etc.
Oh, lest I forget. There were a handful of homosexual staff at the orphanage. We did not encounter them until our teens. We all knew who they were. Secrets were impossible to keep in our little orphanage community. There were sexual encounters between female staff and students. But there was never a whiff of an impropriety involving gay staff. I even went on two week summer excursion with two of the younger staff. Sometimes we slept in a VW bus and somethimes we moteled it. Neither of those guys did or said anything that was—to use the word—inappropriate.
I’ve been happily married for almost 50 years. Along the way I had four sons.
The point is, this study suggests otherwise. If it supposedly only passed on genetically, there would be a low correlation in children adopted by same-sex couples, or at least close to even on par with those who are raised by heterosexual couples but turn out gay. It suggests environmental influences in the child’s upbringing, and not just pure genetics. The one case of reproduction, in which lesbians receive donated sperm, there would also likely be little correlation difference, because given the prevalence of homosexuality amongst the general public, it would likely be highly recessive genes.
Well, guess what? To homosexuals, their sexuality IS their religion. Period! It defines them, it colors everything about their relationships with everyone around them.
Perhaps the best summary I have heard about it.
Please take a moment to watch the links on epigenetics I posted earlier. The most interesting is Randy Jirtle explaining that the diet/environment of the mother affects the DNA manifestations in the offspring. This stuff is really good.
“”This gets back to my simple question: Who would claim to be homosexual who was not? Particularly considering the societal stigma associated with it in the past. “”
I had one client where her mother was very controlling. My client was educated in a parochial school, and totally controlled by her dominant mother. Mother picked the college, major and ruled her daughters life. When the daughter (my client) came home for first semester break from college, she told her mother that she realized that she is a lesbian. The mother replied....”Then you are no daughter of mine!” The daughter had just obtained the separation and freedom that she had been trying to obtain since age 12.
My client then went on to become a lesbian activist. In our conversations, she exclaimed to me several times...”You don't understand, I'm a lesbian.”
I explained that if someone told me they were telling the truth, I believed them. But if they told me several times, I would ask them “Are you trying to convince me or yourself?”
Bottom line, the gay/lesbian community is a very validating peer group for individuals who were never allowed to develop their own identity. In this case, my client needed to convince me that she was a lesbian in order to believe it herself. Even the validation from the peer group was not enough to give her inner peace.
No, she is not a lesbian today. But if she were, that would be ok with me. The problem was the self destructive guilt that was killing her.
Every situation is different. There is no cookie cutter, one explanation fits all answer. Some situations I encountered, I would not even venture to post here in a public forum.
Please understand, that the emotional subconscious over rules the conscious aware mind in the long term. These choices are not logical decisions, they are emotional decisions that are not based upon logical consequences. The subconscious emotional mind also creates phobias. The feelings are real, although they usually have no logical point of origination.
Ha, I am hardly your friend and your misstating what I wrote.
You claim it’s genetic. HA! YOU show ME proof.
I said that homosexuality was an identity disorder. It is true that of the few homosexuals I knew ONE ended up at San Quentin for molesting boys. A lesbian ended up in the hospital with a broken arm after trying to be run over by an x. Never knew any heterosexuals in my circle that ended up doing the same.
Here’s one of a hundred sites. Notice the Marcuse’s Freudian Marxist attempt to “normalize” an unnatural act...something that is learned by emotional and physical abuse...of course, the Greeks and the Romans and the Afghanis don’t think it is child abuse when they initiate the boys into the lifestyle culture.
I’ve raised children in California and worked in schools for decades...I saw the push to homosexualize boys in the classroom and to normalize the behavior. Their sex ed is all about separating morality from the sex act. The Freudian Marxism at work in our schools==thanks to Frankfurt School. What was that book, William’s Doll about?.....how about Tango makes three-—that one where they claim a penguin is homosexual (to prove it’s genetic) and whoops...then he dumps his “mate” for a female. What about that book that is a biological lie—Heather has two mommies. Why are teachers lying to children?
I suppose it is same reason they have shows like Will and Grace—to make something so unnatural and immoral, look acceptable and cute. All about Freudian/Marxist psychology.
Trying to brainwash generations into the Weimar cesspool.
Media and teachers glorify homosexual deviants and make saints out of people who weren’t worthy of sainthood....such as that vile, filthy Harvey Milk. The revisionist history of Matthew Shepherd while ignoring the two homosexuals around the same time who brutally murdered Jesse Dirkhising was deplorable news cover-up as is all the violent lesbians (50%) on death row.
Why do people have to cover up info in the news about homosexuality? Why do they allow no negatives out? (Kindof what they are doing with Islam, huh?)
They cover up crimes that would get 24/7 coverage if it didn’t have a “protected” class of people (unconstitutional BTW)????
Homosexuals are over 3 times more likely to do criminal acts. They are dysfunctional and damaged people who are not normal. They can choose to act moral—it is a behavior choice. It has nothing to do with love, everything to do with lust.
Are you saying what they do it normal? It is no more normal than raping a goat or baby or whatever. It is an obsession they have with their sexual organs and a nihilistic obsession which comes from a deep-seeded self-loathing. Most need psychological help but now it is not PC to get the help...it would mean the behavior is WRONG. Are you saying what they “do” is NOT a behavior? Are you saying the sex act can’t be controlled? Are you saying that it is better to act on all sexual instincts?
I like the way you think, and write!
Well thanks....that makes three people. :)
I agree. I participated in a colleague's research on Attribution Theory back in the early 70s.
It amazed me then and it has amazed me ever since how skewed or biased most people are in a variety of ways according to their backgrounds. People who can suspend judgment in order to see accurately are a rarity.
Your story of Lenny is a sympathetic personal defense of someone in your community who felt even more vulnerable than you may have felt; but it is not by any means a controlled study using the scientific method. Objective research shows different results and behaviors than your description of a single gay-identifying boy who apparently influenced your lifelong opinion of a vaster and much more complex demographic sub-group than this one male, Lenny.
Well thanks....that makes three people. :)
Make it four.
Thanks! I appreciate it.
I like to think I have common sense...My mother was showered with common sense, but always told me it was rare. I always thought she was kidding, until now. I have a strong affinity with John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas, so I think I am on solid ground, since I stay away from all the Post Modern German philosophers who Clinton adores when he says, “It all depends on what is, is.” :(
Lenny is not my only homosexual acqaintance. And, yes, I have been “hit on” by an agressive gay guy. Unlike you I do not infer to an entire group the behavior or emotional development of individuals within that group.
I am not a believer in so-called studies unless I know what the premise was going in—every “study” must have a premise. Other components to consider when evaluating the onjectivity of the study are funding (where did the money come from?) and political agenda/bias.
These so-called studies rarely survive the test of time. For all sorts of reasons. The main impactors being flawed study premise, expanding of the knowledge bank and human bias. Chocolate is good for people one day and bad for us the next. Alcohol is totally bad for us one day, but maybe a little bit is not such a bad thing the next day.
My unscientific sense is that most studies are outcome based and not objective. Also, most studies are more often than not a device to cover somebody’s butt—particularly the political class.
You say your study of homosexuality points to people “changing” their sexual orientation at some point in their lives. No one wants to be thought of as defective. The devilishmess of homosexuality is that, except for the gay defect, these people are are as normal as you or I intellectually. Ergo, unlike the Downs Syndrome kid, they are perfectly aware of their situation.
I remember in the 70s the Gay Community was very insistent that its homosexuality was a “preference”—not genetic. The only problem with that was that it negates their argument that they are a “victim” class. Now the aceppted source of homosexuality is genetic defect.